, 04/04/2012 16:33

, 04/04/2012 16:33 MOORE DODSON RUSSELL PAGE 02/23 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN * * * ) JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) FANCELLI PANELING, INC., and ) J.P. MOLYNEUX STUDIO, LTD., ) ) Defendants. ) ) NO. ST-10-CV-443 (CARROLL, I) ANSWER OP DEFENDANT FANCELLI PANELING, INC., TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AIMORO COMPLAINT, WITS COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSS-CLAIM COMES NOW Defendant, FANCELLI PANELING, INC., by and through its undersigned counsel, to state the following facts and circ ces in Answer to the Second Amended Complaint filed herein: EFTA01085328 04/04/2012 16:33 MOORE DODSON RUSSELL PAGE 83/23 Jurisdiction and V nue Defendant denies the jurisdiction of this honorable Court as to subject matter and over this party. Jurisdiction as to venue ij otherwise admitted. Parties 1. Defendant is currently without sufficient information to admit, or deny the allegations contained in I 1. 2. Defendant is currently without suficienti.tformation to admit, or deny the allegations contained in 12, including, wi out limitation, whether this Plaintiff was in existence at the time of the acts d ' ed actionable, whether it was part of any contracts at issue in this action, wheth it was, or could have been an intended, or third party beneficiary at role t times and whether it currently holds any interest in the subject property, currently exists. 3.. Admitted, except that the reference to the ebsite must refer to same for the terms thereof. 4. Defendant is currently without sufficient it filiation to admit, or deny the allegations contained in q 4, except on the urt's determination on whether J.P. Molyncux is a necessary party. (Alleged) Factual All tions 5. Defendant is currently without information cient to admit or deny the allegations contained in ¶ 5. EFTA01085329 04/04/2012 16:33 MOORE DODSON RUSSELL PAGE 04/23 6 Defendant is currently without informed allegations contained in ¶ 6. 7. Defendant is currently without sufficient allegations contained in ¶ 7, including, bu recommendations." "Molyneux's insi Molyneux," but denies the allegation for installed the library cabinetry and refers therein. 8. Defendant only admits so much of ¶ 8 as references the purchase order(s) issued by "Molyneux" to Fancelli and refers to thl Purchase Orders for the terms thereof, denies duties bbyond satisfaction of these specifics and any benefit to Epstein thereunder. 9. Defendant adidits the allegations contain I in ¶ 9, but denies the allegations that the shipment was to Little St James Tslid and that the shipment was "in, or about May, 2009." 10. Defendant denies each and every alleged contained in ¶ 10, except Defendant is currently without sufficient information to dmit, or deny the allegations relating to the "Proposal," Plaintiffs' Exhibit 3, an the undefined "Molyneux design." It is further apparent that the defects alleged ave been rectified and/or completed, in satisfaction of Molyneux's purchase or with Defendant sufficient to admit, or deny the nation to admit, or deny the not limited to "Molyneux's and what "Epstein agreed with hose benefit Defendant fabricated and the website for the representations EFTA01085330 04/04/2012 16:33 MOORE DODSON RUSSELL PAGE 05/23 WA Defendant denies the allegations contialited in ¶10.A, but is currently without information sufficient to admit, or deny allegations relating to the "Proposal" I and the "Molyneux's design," and refe to Molyneux Replacement Purchase Order 7106 and to the "Work ApprovalJc dated March 23, 2010, from Plaintiffs by Gary Kearney to Molyneux Studio, arid March 25, 2010 "Fanelli Punch List by Geary Kearney, and J.P. Molyric= Studio "Punch List Report March 22, 2010," as to the truth of the matter assert4d herein. Sec Defendant's Exhibits 2- 5. 10.B Defendant denies the allegations con in 1102, but is currently without information sufficient to admit, or deny e allegations relating to the undated 'photograph?' without attribution, and to the "Work Approval" dated March 23, 2010 from IPlaintiffs by Gary Keam Ito Molyneux Studio, March 25, 2010 "FANCELLI PUNCH LIST' by Gary Keitney, and J.P. MOLYNEUX STUDIO "Punch List Reiort March 22, 2010" as to 4math of the allegations therein. 10.0 Defendant deities the allegations con in 110.C, but is currently without information sufficient to admit, or deny allegations relating to the undated "photographs" without attribution, and to a "Proposal," and refers to the "Work Approval" dated March 23, 2010 from Pliindffs by Gary Kearney to Molyneux Studio, March 25, 2010 "FANCELLI P H LIST' by Gary Kearney, and J.P. MOLYNEUX Scan° "Punch List Repo March 22, 2010" and to Molyneux e- mail dated May 1, 2009 to Plaintif& as to truth of the allegations therein. See EFTA01085331 04/04/2012 16:33 MOORE DODSON RUSSELL 1 1i PAGE 06/23 alsoMolynetu's letter to Defendant dated of Molyneux to Plaintiff(s), Defendant' 10.D Defendant denies the allegations con information sufficient to admit, or deny "distressed finish" had been "agreed to "violation" of the Purchase Orders, "treatment" and refers to Atelier Meriguet stain color and finish for the cabinetry, March 23, 2010 from Plainti.£fs by Gary 2010 "FANCELLI PUNCH LIST" by STUDIO "Punh List Report March 22, 1, 2009 to Plaintiff as to the truth of the allegations therein. 10.E Defendant denies the allegations contain Approval" dated March 23, 2010 from P F Studio, March 25, 2010 "FANCELLI P MOLYNEUX STUDIO "Punch List mail dated May'l, 2009 to Plaintiff as to 10.? Defendant denies the allegations co information sufficient to admit, or deny "photograph" Without attribution, and ref 23, 2010 from Plaintiffs by Gary Kearney 12, 2010 with the May 1, 2009 email t 6. ¶10.1), but is currently without the allegations relating to whether the Epstein," denies the allegation of a I. I the allegations with respect to the re, hired by Molyneux to create the a refers to the "Work Approval" dated ey to Molyneux Studio, March 25, Kearney, and J.P. MOLYNEUX i04' and to Molyneux e-mail dated May ellgations therein;, as to the truth of the I I di LIST" by Gary Kearney, and J.P. *arch 22, 2010" and to Molyneux of the allegations therein. tin ¶102 but is currently without e allegations relating to the undated the 'Work Approval" dated March Molyneux Studio, March 25, 2010 in ¶10.E and refers to the "Work by Gary Kearney to Molyneux EFTA01085332 04/04/2012 16:33 MOORE DODSON RUSSELL PAGE 07/23 "FANCELLI PUNCH LISP by Gary K4nicy, and J.P. MOLYNEUX STUDIO "Punch List Report March 22, 2010" as to le ruth of the allegations therein. II 10.G Defendant denies the allegations container ii 1110.G including, but not limited to, the allegation that the cabinetry was "no , properly sealed," is currently without information sufficient to admit, or deny allegations relating to the undated "photographs" without attribution, and re to the "Work Approval" dated March 23, 2010 from Plaintiffs by Gary Keamj e- Molyneux Studio, March 25, 2010 TANCRII I PUNCH LISP by Gary , and J,P. MOLYNEUX STUDIO "Punch List Report March 22, 2010" as to truth of the allegations. 10.H Defendant denies the allegations contained 110.H, including, but not limited to, the allegation that the Library Cabinetry as niggled was contrary to the Purchase Orders with Molyneux, and refers to the ork Approval" dated March 23, 2010 from Plaintiffs l Gary Kearney to Molyne Studio, March 25, 2010 "PANCELLI PUNCH LIST"I by Gary Kearney, and J.P ] bijOLYNEUX STUDIO "Punch List Report March 22, 2010" as to the truth of the legations therein. 10.1 Defendant deals the allegations con Approval" dated March 23, 2010 from P1 Studio, March 25, 2010 "FANCELLI PUN MOLYNEUX STUDIO `Punch List Report issue was addressed by Defendant and appro 10.1 Defendant denieS the allegations contained Approval" dated March 23, 2010 from P1 in: 1110.1, and refers to the "Work tiffs by Gary Kearney to Molyneux .LIST" by Gary Kearney, and J.P. 22, 2010" as confirms that the by Plaintiff and Molyneux; is 110.1 and refers to the "Work by Gary Kearney to Molyneux EFTA01085333 04/04/2012 16:33 3407775498 MOORE DODSCH RUSSELL I PAGE 08/23 Studio, March 25, 2010 "FANCFJJJ PUN LIST" by Gary Kearney, and J.P. MOLYNEUX STUDIO "Punch List R With 22, 2010" as confirms that the issue was addressed by Defendant and approl d by Plaintiff and Molyneux. 10.K Defendant denies the allegations contain in ¶10.K, and refers to the "Work Approval" dated March 23, 2010 from P by Gary Kearney to Molyneux Studio, March 25, 2010 "FANCELLI P Cl LIST" by Gary Kearney, and J.P. MOLYNEUX STUDIO "Punch List Report 4arch 22, 2010" as confirms that the allegation was not an ikquo in March, 2010. 101 Defendant denies the allegations Approval" dated March 23, 2010 from Studio, March 25, 2010 "FANCELLI P MOLYNEUX STUDIO "Punch List Report allegations therein. 10.M Defendant denies the allegations contained Approval" dated March 23, 2010 from P Studio, March 2010 "FANCELLI PUN MOLYNEUX &II MAIO "Punch List Report issue was addresed by Defendant and app 10.N Defendant denie§ the allegations contained Approval" dated March 23, 2010 from PI Studio, March 25, 2010 "FANCELLI PUN th 1101 and refers to the "Work ffs by Gary Kearney to Molyneux LIST" by Gary Kearney, and J.P. 22, 2010" as to the Inrth of the in• 110.M and refers to the "Work by Gaty Kearney to Molyneux LIST" by Gary Kearney, and J.P. 22, 2010" as confirms that the by Plaintiff and Molyneux. l¶10.N and refers to the "Work ills by Gary Kearney to Molyneux LIST" by Gary Kearney, and J.P. EFTA01085334 04/04/2012 16:33 MXttE DODSON RUSSELL PAGE 09/23 MOLYNEUX STUDIO "Punch List -uivlarch 22, 2010" as confirms that the issue was addressed by Defendant and ap vI d by Plaintiff and Molyneux 10.O Defendant denies the allegations contautHEin 110.O and refers to the "Work Approval" dated March 23, 2010 from illai4tiffs by Gary Kearney to Molyneux Studio, March 25, 2010 "FANCELLI P t I LIST" by Gary Kearney, and J.P. MOLYNEUX STUDIO "Punch List Re March 22, 2010" as confirms that the issue was addressed by Defendant and ap by Plaintiff and Molyneux. 102 Defendant denies the allegations co fn 110.P and refers to the "Work Approval" dated March 23, 2010 from P i II ffs by Gary Kearney to Molyneux Studio, March 25, 2010 "FANCELLI P El LIST" by Gary Kearney, and LP. MOLYNEUX TUDIO "Punch List Rep! MI arch 22, 2010" as =firms that the allegation was riot an issue in March, 2010 10.Q Defendant Is the allegations. con cicnt to admit, or deny' I !allegations relating to the undated information su "photographs" without attribution, but dent scope of the Purchase Orders and refers to 2010 from Plaintiffs by Gary Kearney "FANCELLI PlkNCH LIST" by Gary Kr "Punch List Reptrt March 22, 2010" as co 10.R Defendant admiis the allegations contarrn information cient to admit, or deny "photographs" without attribution, but deni in 110.Q, is currently without that the alleged defect was within the "Work Approval" dated March 23, Molyneux Studio, Match 25, 2010 eit, and J.P. MOLYNEUX STUDIO Itt • the same. ; 4 110.R, but is currently without allegations relating to the undated ti t the alleged defect was within the EFTA01085335 04/04/2012 16:33 3407775498 MOORE DODSON RUSSELL PAGE 10/23 scope of the Purchase Orders and refers 2010 from Plaintiffs by Gary Kearney! "FANCELLI PUNCH LIST' by Gary It "Punch List Report March 22, 2010" 10.S Defendant denies the allegations containbd Approval" dated March 23, 2010 from P Studio, March 25, 2010 "FANCELLI P MOLYNEUX STUDIO "Punch List R allegations therein. 10.T Defendant admits the allegations con e "Work Approval" dated March 23, Molyneux Studio, March 25, 2010 , and J.P. MOLYNEUX STUDIO the same. in 110.S and refers to the "Work by Gary Kearney to Molyneux usr by Gary Kearney, and J.P. itch 22, 2010" as to the truth of the in ¶10.T and refers to the "Work Approval" dated March 23, 2010 from PI :ffs by Gary Kearney to Molyneux Studio, March 25, 2010 "FAWIFIli PUN6 LIST" by Gary Kearney, and MOLYNEUX STUDIO "Punch List Repor %larch 22, 2010" as to the truth of the allegations 11. Defendant de,n the allegations contained ih 1 11, and refers to the "Work Approval" date March 23, 2010 from P , by their agent, Gary Kearney, to Molyneux Studio and the March 25, 20 0, "Fanelli Punch List" by Gary Kearney, and the J.P. Molyncux Studio ' List Report of March 22, 2010, to be juxtaposed as to the allegations there' exed as Defendant's Exhibits 1, 2 & 3, herein. EFTA01085336 04/04/2012 16:33 MOOREDODSONRUSSELL PAGE 11/23 Count I (Breach 12. Defendant incorporates by reference its 11 as if fully set forth herein. 13. Defendant denies the allegations of I 13 14. Defendant denies the allegations of q sufficient information to admit, or deny and the undefined "Molyneux's design} dated March 23, 2010, from Plaintiffs b1 March 25, 2010 "Fanelli Punch List $y Studio "Punch List Report March 22, 2014 herein. 15. Defendant deniCs the allegations ofl 15. 16. Defendant denies the allegations co rnu without info ition sufficient to admit, "Proposal, the undefined "Molyneux Approval" dated March 23, 2010 from P1 Studio, the Manch 25, 2010 "Fanelli Molyneux Studio "Punch List Report M matter asserted herein. ntract) uses to the preceding paragraphs 1- but Defendant is currently without negations relating to the "Proposal" refers to the "Work Approval" Kearney to Molyneux Studio, and Kearney, and J.P. Molyneux its to the truth of the matter asserted 16, but Defendant is currently deny the allegations relating to the and references to "Work by Gary Kearney, to Molyneux hi List" by Kearney, and the J.P. 22, 2010," as to the truth of the EFTA01085337 04/84/2012 16:33 IA00RE DODSON RUSSELL PAGE 12/23 17. Defendant denies any contractual Molyncux, or any contractual breach wha Count IT (N 18. Defendant incorporates by reference its 17 as if fully sit forth herein. 19. Defendant denies the allegations of Plaintiffs herein. 20. Defendant denies the allegations of I 20 and omissions" any duty to Plaintiffs applicable standard of care. 21. Defendant deniJ:s any and all negligent ads DEFENDANT FURTHER DENIES EACH AND E WITHIN THE COMPLAINT THAT WAS NOT SPE First A :rotative As and for its first taxi tithe defense, Defendant ts..erts that the Second Amended Complaint (hereinafter "Comp aint") fails to state a claira htpOn which relief can be granted. by and between Defendant and ver. uses to the preceding paragraphs I - and specifically denies any duty to specifically denies any alleged "acts d (or any applicable breach of any and omissions. k ALLEGATION CONTAINED i'ALLY ADMITTED HER . EFTA01085338 PAGE 13/23 84/84/2012 16:33 MOORE DODSON RUSSELL As and for its second affirmative defense, Deft jurisdiction over the subject matter (as to contract the person of Defendant. ,Third Affirmative As and for its third affirmative defense, Defend barred in whole or in part by the assumption of all risks occurrences alleged in the Complaint. Plaintiffs, in ass control at any time over cabinetry and related materials, and care required of a reasonably prudent person under Fourth A flirnuitive D As and for its fourth affirmative defense, Defend barred in whole or in part by any negligence of this Defend it contributory and/or co t (which negligence is Fifth Affirmative D As and for its fifth affi tivc dcfense, Defendant in whole or in part due to Plaintiffs' failure to mitigate d As and for its sixth its claims were not proximately case al asserts that this Court lacks ly, but generally otherwise) and over asLerts that Plaintiffs' claims are nt at or about the time of the some risk and/or by exercising ell to exercise the ordinary caution 1 L-cumstances. asserts that Plaintiffs' claims are ve negligence which exceeded ly denied). ISTrtkAffirmative_De 'ye defense, Defendan caused by Defendant and that Plaintiffs' claims are barred that Plaintiffs' injury alleged in therefore barred, in whole or in EFTA01085339 04/04/2012 16:33 MOORE DODSON RUSSELL PAGE 14/23 part, by such preceding, intervening or superseding causes over which Defendant had no control. Seventh Affirmative As and for its seventh affinnative defense, Defendini1 asserts that the damages of which the Plaintiffs complain arc due to the acts and/or omissiol tf the Plaintiffs and/or others over which Defendant had no control. Pekin Alrirmair As and for its eighth affirmative defense, Defends* barred in whole or in part due Ito the maxims of equity, irol of unclean hands, waiver and/or estoppel. Ninth Affirmative D As and for its ninth affirmative defense, Defers barred in whole or in part due willful and reckless. o the "no duty" rule, as to &seats that Plaintiffs' claims are but not limited to the doctrine Se fte erts the Plaintiffs' claims are itional acts of others deemed Tenth Affirmative Detrue As and for his tenth affirmative defense, Defendant .:erft. the collateral source doctrine as an offset against any damages contemplated herein. EFTA01085340 04/84/2012 16:33 MOORE DODSON RUSSELL PAGE 15/23 Eleventh Affirmative As and for its eleventh affirmative defense, Def barred in whole or in part by the failure of consideratio capacities. Twelfth Affirmative As and for its twelfth affirmative defense, Defen barred in whole or in part by lack of contract and/or pri Thirteenth Affirmative As and for its thirteenth affirmative defense, Dcf to either or both of them, are barred, in whole or in part, and/or by lathes. Fourteenth Affirmative As and for its fourteenth affirmative defense, De asserts that the damages of which Plaintiffs complain arc dice to the acts and/or o ,of Plaintiffs in its course of conduct with their contractors, pr on the part of their con Fifteenth Affirmative D As and for its fifteenth affirmative defense, Defen sessert that Plaintiffs' claims are Se alit asserts that Plaintiffs' claims are tja each of them in their individual that Plaintiffs claims are se asserts that Plaintiffs' claims, as :he applicable statute of limitations barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of payment and a se E, • EFTA01085341 04/84/2012 16:33 Sixteenth Affi As and for its sixteenth affirmative defense, De n t asserts that Plaintiffs' claims arc barred, in whole or in part, through Defendant's compl substantial performance under any contract, which contract with Plaintiffs is specifically de Seventeenth Affirmed& Sue As and for its seventeenth affirmative defense, D ndant assert that Plaintiffs' claims are batted, in whole or in part, byRhe statute of frauds. Eighteenth Affirntative As and for its eighteenth affirmative defense, Def 141 asserts accord and satisfaction as a bar to Plaintiffs' claims, in. whole or in part. Nineteenth Affirmative 4 Eire As and for its nineteen affirmative defense, Deflillrfin asserts that Plaintiffs claims are PAGE 16/23 barred, in whole or in part by r4lease. Defendants speciiicall3f reserves the right to *mks 'find raise additional (affirmative) defenses in this litigation which are subse to disclosed and supported by t e information gleaned through investigation, discovery s t t evidence. WILEREFORE having responded to each allegation contained within the Second Amer raising its affirmative defenses thereto, De requests this goncrable Court to grant the A. To dismiss this action with prejudice as ag very factual M Complaint, and t respectfully Wing relief: ibis Defendant; It EFTA01085342 04/04/2012 16:33 MOORE DODSCN RUSSELL PAGE 17/23 B. To award Defendant its costs, induct' attorney's fees incurred in the defense C. To award such other and further relief just and proper. DEFE ANT'S COUNTERCLAIM COUNT I (DECLARATOR COMES NOW DEFENDANT, by and throu following facts and circumst‘cs in support of its Cou 22. Defendant incorporates by reference its 21 as if fully set forth herein. 23. Whatever agreements, oral or otherwise design drawings by Molyneux, that were (Plaintiffs) were done without the parti Defendant Upon information and belief; limited "pure Defendant 24. Molyneux I purchase orders to De specifications as outlined therein. Defen payment upon itk completion. The o order(s)" prepared b nable action; and k.ourt deems AINsT PLAINTins GMENT) dersigned Counsel to state the km against Plaintiffs herein: nses to the preceding paragraphs 1- isecluding Plaintiffs' Exhibit 3 and Sig between Molyneux and Epstein n, involvement and/or consent of agreements are far in excess of the elyneux for work to be done by for the fabrication of work to the performed the work, fully expecting purchase order issued to Defendant • EFTA01085343 04/04/2012 16:33 Mt10RE DODSON RUSSELL PAGE 18/23 by Molyneux defining the limited "light oak" and is attached as Defendant 25. In conjunction with the work outlin Defendant performed the work to the sa 26. In that regard, Defendant received Defendant performed the work to the satisfaction of Plaintiffs by Plaintiff's 4. 27. Defendant was specifically instructed by Plaintiff(s) on this project was limited representative, Kearney ("Kearney" 28. Plaintiffs' ntative, Kearney, signed off its action of a punch list, issues that are ce minimus for purposes o 3. 29. A review of the distinction in verb tense and the Second Amended Complaint el First no longer existed by the filing of the The Plaintiffs needed (I) light bulbs, (2) bamboo blackboard. the work and that the wood to be ibis I. olyneux in its purchase order(s), on of Molyneux. Molyneux acknowledgment that don of Molyneux (and to the native). See Defendant's Exhibit tints) that's it communication with ,t ime individuals, including its/their a Defendant's Exhibit 2. i dilly accepted Defendant's work, With the exception of three (3) minor action.' See Defendant's Exhibit n the Pint Amended Complaint that the defects as alleged in the 4d. ens 4 large and 4 small and (3) a EFTA01085344 04/04/2012 16:33 MOORE DODSON RUSSELL PAGE 19/23 30. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs' completed all outstanding contractual o Plaintiffs. 31. Upon Molyneux's specific written ac completed any and all of its obligations Molyncux and Defendant. 32. Defendant Molyncux, the actual party accepted Defendant's work by fully ackn 33. Plaintiffs, by and through their dcsignat for exceedingly minor additions, by ackn 34. The writings reference above constitute 35. The writings referenced above consti claims against Defendant's work. 36. With the exception of approximately paid for the work on account without prot stated" defense in acceptance and acknow 37. As a result of e foregoing justiciable Defendant see a declaratory judgment Defendant satisfied its written con c contractor, Molyneux, effected and ons by and between Molyneux and gment, Defendant had previously the purchase orders by and between rivity of contract with Defendant, Mating same in a writing. nt, accepted Defendant's work, but ging same in a writing. as a matter of law. rd and satisfaction as against any Two Thousand Euro, Molyneux has Within the meaning of the "accounts ent of the work. versies as alleged by Plaintiffs, h. this Honorable Court that: (1) obligations, if any, to Molyneux, EFTA01085345 MOORE DODSON RUSSELL PAGE 20/23 04/04/2012 16:33 terminating any claim of further benefi (2) that Defendant has been released b matter of law and fact; (3) that Molyne Defendant without protest as a matter entitled to a dismissal of this action u and or the doctrine of "accounts stat entitled to damages, attorneys fees and trial. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs are obli contract, with no pending bleach identified. Plaintiffs in tort, having received adequate compensation fro litigation is to make one whole, not rich. WILEFtEFOR*, Defendant respectfully Honorable Court to grant the following re A. To adjudge ar substantially perf independently and through Molynewc from or independe Defendant damage determined; B. To award Defe in the defense of thi declare that Defend rmed any obligatio or through its contra including any allegatio ly from the purchase and against Plaintiffs in lent its attorney's fees action; and Plaintiffs as a matter of law and fact; ndant Molymeux and Plaintiffs, as a Plaintiffs have accepted the work of and fact; and (4) that Defendant is ease and/or accord and satisfaction hout protest. Defendant is further in an amount to be determined at dismiss their action in the nature of fhrther obliged to dismiss their action P • ary contractor. The goal of dens this as against Plaintiffs herein: ormed and Plaintiffs obligations negligence d to award ount to be dests, ;named EFTA01085346 . 04/04/2012 16:33 MEM MOORE DODSON RUSSELL PAGE 21/23 C. To award just and pro other and father tell DEFENDANT'S C OSS-CLAIMS AGAIN COUNT 1 (DECLARATOIfl 38. Defenthua incorporates by reference its 21 and the new matter contained in 22-3" As a result of the foregoing, Defendant seeks a e Court deems FENDANTIVIOLYNEUX GMENT) uses to the preceding paragraphs 1- If fully set forth herein. aratory judgment from this Honorable Court that: (1) Defendant satisfied its written contra:. llai obligations, if any, to Molyneux, 1 terminating any claim of wither benefit to Plaintiffs an 1, 'vfolyneux as a matter of law and fact; (2) that Defendant has been released by Defendant Mo€lmsux and Plaintiffs as a matter of law and fact; (3) that Molyneux and Plaintiffs have accepte(64 work of Defendant without protest 1 as a matter of law and fact (4) that Defendant is eat, led to a dismissal of this action upon release and/or accord and sat faction and or the doctriai eraccounts stated" without protest. Defendant is further entitled t damages, attorneys fees atil costs, in an amount to be determined at trial. COUNT 2 DEMNITICATION ANf1 C O NTRIBUTION) 39. Defendant inco rates by reference its tattles to the preceding paragraphs 1- 21, together with the new matter contained it 2-38 as if fully set forth herein. EFTA01085347 04/04/2012 16:33 MOORE DODSON RUSSELL PAGE 22/23 A. To adjudge and declare that Defendan substantially pettotmed its duties as limit orders(s) between it and Molyncux and damages againat Molyneux in an amount realized by Plaintiffs against Defendant Fan B. To award Defendant its attorney's fees in the defense of this action; and C. To award such other and further relief just and proper. ja Dated this ar of April, 2012. Respectful' Treston E V.I. Bar MOORE D Attorneys f P.O. Box 31 St. Thomas, PHONE: FAX: EMAIL: performed or Ir liy Defendant the purchase alt) to any amount ,Costs, incurred Court deems SON & RUSS L, P.C. attendant Fancelli b.s. (14A Norre Gade) 804-0310 EFTA01085348 04/84/2012 16:33 MOORE DODSCH RUSSELL POISE 23/23 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that on this 4- th day of April served by facsimile transition and first class mail, Esquire, Hodge & Francois, #1340 Taarneberg, St. Th I further certify tha on this 4 day of April, postage prepaid, to A. Jeffery Weiss, Esquire, 6934 Vc pending his appearance, to Molyneux Studios, Ltd., 29 10021. a Plaintiffs' Counsel is asked to notify Defendant's whet served. The parties will have to expedite a meeting of Counsel advance of the court ordered mediation dates. thRVICE a copy of the foregoing was prepaid, upon Denise Francois, V.I. 00802. 24 a copy of the foregoing was mailed, p , St. Thomas, V.I. 00802 and, 69ib Street, New York, New York fondant J.P. Molyneux Studio, Ltd., is wantto Fed. R. Cm P. 26(f) in EFTA01085349